It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LannisterGold
reply to post by exdog5
I think you guys need to look at this very objectively. UFOs = Unidentified Flying Objects. It is something in the air that they haven't identified yet. They're not saying that alien spacecraft are not related to aliens they are saying that "that something that is up there" is not related to aliens.
Originally posted by JimOberg
So NASA employees aren't allowed personal opinions?
I'd be curious to see that link, to verify you're not just imagining it for argument's sake.
Originally posted by LannisterGold
I think you guys need to look at this very objectively. UFOs = Unidentified Flying Objects. It is something in the air that they haven't identified yet. They're not saying that alien spacecraft are not related to aliens they are saying that "that something that is up there" is not related to aliens.
Originally posted by exdog5
Still Reading, but this little bit sparked my brain-cage-
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and NASA have had intermittent, independent investigations of the possibility of alien life on other planets; however, none of these has produced factual evidence that life exists on other planets, nor that UFO's are related to aliens.
Originally posted by LannisterGold
reply to post by exdog5
I think you guys need to look at this very objectively. UFOs = Unidentified Flying Objects. It is something in the air that they haven't identified yet. They're not saying that alien spacecraft are not related to aliens they are saying that "that something that is up there" is not related to aliens.
Originally posted by roughycannon
Now before I start I'm a real sceptic just check my posts on here and I don't believe that we are being visited, I see people reading into things too much, jumping the gun and not doing any real research (sometimes) anyhoo just because I don't believe doesn't mean I dont at least have a passing interest in it...
So I was nosying around on the NASA site and I was looking at stuff about warps drives when I read this FAQ about UFO's and the way its written really confused me, now as I said I dont jump the gun, I re-read things twice and I try never to read between the lines but I'll point out some things that really made me go... erm what?
Now remember this is from the official NASA site and is an official answer from NASA in the FAQ read the whole article as things can easily be taken out of context but here are the bits I''m talking about...
On the subject of UFOs the signal to noise ratio is so abysmal, that it does no good to listen.
If they don't exist then how do you know the ratio is abysmal and why did you try to listen?
That whole subject is really irrelevant to our own human quest to travel to space. If we humans are going to figure out how to build space vehicles, then WE have to build our own space vehicles. It doesn't matter if it has or has not been done by someone else.
Talking about a suggestion of learning from UFO stories, is the answer not "they don't exist so we cant learn from them" ?
Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful
What? you meant to say "Even if UFOs were completely real, which there not" didnt you?
if someone in the previous century saw a film of a 747 flying past, it would not tell them how to build a jet engine, what fuel to use, or what materials to make it out of. Yes, the wings are a clue, but just that
Why are you making a point about not learning from UFO's when the point is they don't exist?
During several space missions, NASA astronauts have reported phenomena
Really?
no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force was ever a threat to our national security
If they don't exist why are you investigating if they a threat?
there was no evidence submitted to, or discovered by, the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge
So are the UFO's you then?
there was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles
Only in the "unidentified" category? surely that would be all categories as they don't exist.
Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defence and space budgets, it is unlikely that the Air Force or NASA will become involved in this type of costly project in the foreseeable future.
So your not investigating them because of the budget? not that they don't exist?
As I said I'm not a believer but when I saw the FAQ title about UFO's I thought the answer wont be a flat out denial but it clearly isn't, remember and read the whole article because single quotes can easily taken out of context when not viewed in the complete paragraph.
I honestly came away from reading that thinking WTF? now I could be reading between the lines but some of the stuff in there is just a weird way to talk about something that doesn't exist, what do you guys think?
Woops forgot to add the link NASA articleedit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: Forgot linkedit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Adlai
Originally posted by roughycannon
Now before I start I'm a real sceptic just check my posts on here and I don't believe that we are being visited, I see people reading into things too much, jumping the gun and not doing any real research (sometimes) anyhoo just because I don't believe doesn't mean I dont at least have a passing interest in it...
So I was nosying around on the NASA site and I was looking at stuff about warps drives when I read this FAQ about UFO's and the way its written really confused me, now as I said I dont jump the gun, I re-read things twice and I try never to read between the lines but I'll point out some things that really made me go... erm what?
Now remember this is from the official NASA site and is an official answer from NASA in the FAQ read the whole article as things can easily be taken out of context but here are the bits I''m talking about...
On the subject of UFOs the signal to noise ratio is so abysmal, that it does no good to listen.
If they don't exist then how do you know the ratio is abysmal and why did you try to listen?
That whole subject is really irrelevant to our own human quest to travel to space. If we humans are going to figure out how to build space vehicles, then WE have to build our own space vehicles. It doesn't matter if it has or has not been done by someone else.
Talking about a suggestion of learning from UFO stories, is the answer not "they don't exist so we cant learn from them" ?
Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful
What? you meant to say "Even if UFOs were completely real, which there not" didnt you?
if someone in the previous century saw a film of a 747 flying past, it would not tell them how to build a jet engine, what fuel to use, or what materials to make it out of. Yes, the wings are a clue, but just that
Why are you making a point about not learning from UFO's when the point is they don't exist?
During several space missions, NASA astronauts have reported phenomena
Really?
no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force was ever a threat to our national security
If they don't exist why are you investigating if they a threat?
there was no evidence submitted to, or discovered by, the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge
So are the UFO's you then?
there was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles
Only in the "unidentified" category? surely that would be all categories as they don't exist.
Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defence and space budgets, it is unlikely that the Air Force or NASA will become involved in this type of costly project in the foreseeable future.
So your not investigating them because of the budget? not that they don't exist?
As I said I'm not a believer but when I saw the FAQ title about UFO's I thought the answer wont be a flat out denial but it clearly isn't, remember and read the whole article because single quotes can easily taken out of context when not viewed in the complete paragraph.
I honestly came away from reading that thinking WTF? now I could be reading between the lines but some of the stuff in there is just a weird way to talk about something that doesn't exist, what do you guys think?
Woops forgot to add the link NASA articleedit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: Forgot linkedit on 10-2-2011 by roughycannon because: (no reason given)
No star. No flag. You lie to begin with, saying you're a skeptic, because you used false logic at every point.
The basic statement they are trying to make is that they do not admit or deny the existence of aliens and that ufo doesn't mean aliens. They're being scietists going throug a scientific method. You're looking into it too much.
Originally posted by polarwarrior
Its impossible to prove that ET's dont exist without having explored every nook and cranny of the entire friggen universe so for now all they can say is that its "doubtful".
I think a few of the skeptics here could take a page out of nasa's book and admit that without omnipresence they cannot prove a negative. Being open minded is the only wise stance imo.
Furthermore with guys like stephen hawking saying that et's MUST exist then its understandable that nasa may be a little more sane about the topic nowadays.
NASA's Kepler Mission has discovered 54 planet candidates that orbit in the habitable zone of their host star; this so-called "Goldilocks" region is "not too hot or too cold, but just right" for the possible existence of liquid water on the surface of a planet. Four of those candidates are near Earth-sized planets in orbit around small, cool stars. The findings, discussed at a news conference held Feb. 2 at NASA Headquarters in Washington, are based on data collected by the space telescope between May and September, 2009. Ground-based observatories will be used this spring and summer to help determine if these candidates can be validated as planets.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by laterallateral
Things can only be true or false in human terms if the observer has enough data to support a conclusion one way or the other.
For example... Your post makes a 'false' statement, because you have misunderstood the fact that a decision cannot be reached when the available data is limited...
My post (this one) represents a 'true' statement, in that it describes how there is plenty of leeway for a 'middle ground' where something cannot be categorised as true or false.
The agnostic position... The Gray Area... The fuzziness between the spaces; a place of limbo - schroedinger's cat. The place where anything could happen/ be happening because we can't call it one way or the other. Black, white, or shades of gray.
Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by roughycannon
During several space missions, NASA astronauts have reported phenomena
Really?
no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force was ever a threat to our national security
If they don't exist why are you investigating if they a threat?
These two are clinchers! The first few were a bit vague but these two should open people's eyes a bit more.